I'm well aware of that. Since I'm looking for outliers in the PDB, avoiding 2HR0 is the opposite of what I want to be doing. ;)
I only picked it for my example because it's one of a few IDs I have memorized. :) Eric On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Michael Hadders <mhadd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2HR0???? I would stay far away from that one! It is a made up model, not > based on any real data. Unfortunately, for reasons unclear to me, this > structure has still not been retracted from the PDB. This B factor could > just be a figment of the senior authors imagination.... > > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0912&L=CCP4BB&D=0&P=88327 > > Regards, > > Michael > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Eric Williams <ericwilli...@pobox.com>wrote: > >> Please pardon me if this is a dumb question with an obvious answer... >> >> I'm parsing SFCheck's plain text output as part of my dissertation, and >> I'm having trouble identifying one of the values. There are three overall >> B-factor values reported, one based on the Patterson origin peak, one based >> on the Wilson plot, and one that remains a mystery to me. Here's the >> relevant line (from 2HR0) with some lines before and after for context: >> >> R_stand(I) = <sig(I)>/<I> : 0.397 >> Number of acceptable reflections: 194123 >> for resolution : 45.33 - 2.26 >> Optical Resolution: 1.80 >> Boveral,Effres,Padd: 40.751 2.032 777.887 >> Expected Optical Resolution for complete data set: 1.80 >> / Optical resolution - expected minimal distance between >> two resolved peaks in the electron density map./ >> Resmax_used(opt): 2.26 >> >> The mystery value is Boveral. I've found no explanation for it in either >> the SFCheck manual or the original journal article. Perhaps I'm missing >> something obvious, but someone would really make my day if they could point >> me in the right direction. Thanks! :) >> >> Eric >> > >
